I don't like including fields for documentation purposes that have
a name that doesn't make it clear that they're only for documentation.
As Jeremy just demonstrated, it's easy to convince yourself that those
fields should be used in some cases (and I was moderately convinced of
that myself earlier this evening). But in fact, they're totally
unnecessary, and if you set them to contradict the same fields in
ejb-jar.xml for the same relation (or relationship role) then there's no
ill effect whatsoever.
If we were going to try to match the ejb-jar.xml schema, then we
should validate that values are the same across the ejb-jar block and
openejb-jar block (assuming they're both present). But really, what's the
benefit of not just including a "description" element instead? That way
someone can put in "matches relation 'foo' in ejb-jar.xml" or they can put
some other meaningful description or leave it out entirely, and it's
obvious that it's not an important field as far as the server is
concerned.
Thanks,
Aaron
On Thu, 28 Jul 2005, Gianny Damour wrote:
> Hi,
>
> They are indeed not used except for documentation purposes. I am not
> sure that we should rename them documentation as this will not mirror
> the standard DD.
>
> Thanks,
> Gianny
>
> On 28/07/2005 12:43 PM, Aaron Mulder wrote:
>
> > What's the purpose of the ejb-relation-name and
> >ejb-relationship-role-name elements at:
> >
> >openejb-jar/relationships/ejb-relation/ejb-relation-name
> >
> >openejb-jar/relationships/ejb-relation/ejb-relationship-role/
> > ejb-relationship-role-name
> >
> > It seems that we ignore those, and don't validate them against
> >each other even if they're present in both ejb-jar.xml and openejb-jar.xml
> >(they're optional in both files). I guess it could be used for
> >"documentation", but then I'd prefer to make it a description element
> >instead of something that looks like it ought to be present.
> >
> >Thanks,
> > Aaron
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
